Gore and Cheney are both pretty well known. Though Gore not so much for being VP.
Biden not so much. Cheney (and Palin if they'd won) are the only two (well Quayle too if we go back a little further) that I would see as assassination defenses.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in it. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.
It is known that there are an infinite number of integers, simply because there is no maximum integer. However, not every one if them is even. Therefore, there must be a finite number of even integers.
We hit a major flaw with the logic on the very first inference. Of course comic science fiction isn't supposed to be a math textbook.
The constitution does no such thing (well for Congress, there is only one President so that can be nothing but winner-takes-all, well I guess you could return to "second place gets to be VP" but that's retarded). Legislation has, but legislation is far easier to change than the consitution.
Per capita numbers and population are exactly the best choice for working out what the total income is (assuming you don't have the total income number directly)
There was no claim that taxes or income where uniform across the population. Just the simple evidence that your "The American government spends so much money that even if every single income tax payer was paying 100% of their income in tax, there would still be a deficit" claim is completely false.
He resorted to that after the bad email. Not a swearing and so on email, but "put on your big boy hat" and "Maybe Iâ(TM)ll put them on eBay for 150.00 myself".
Everything until that point had been civil... Everything up to that point has been a private email exchange.
All the guy had to do was not be evasive in a reply, give the customer an expected shipping date and say "sorry for the delays but it is outside our control at the moment".
And instead of replying instantly with "put on your big boy hat" take a little while to see if they can extend the $10 off offer to new orders they are currently running to this particular customer (or if you are the one who makes the decision just do so).
His greviances would have been erased then and there. In fact the only thing the customer seems annoyed with at the time is that there's a $10 off offer to new orders, but it isn't going to apply to his even though it hasn't even shipped to him yet.
And yes he entered the deal and has no right to $10 off. But after getting the run around and then seeing that most people would ask if they could get it too.
also the cost of removing the carbon and pollutants involved in burning it
I would also think free marketers would disagree with. The costs of the pollutants (including carbon) from burning it should be paid for by the one doing the burning not by the one who produced the gas.
Except that you can't sue them for being negligent in making a product, since no regulations would exist allowing you to do so, since those regulations could not be applied in a truly 'free' market. The only remedy in a truly 'free' market is to stop buying any negligently made products, so they stop being made. Unfortunately, that doesn't much help the people who died or were injured, eh?
That's simply not true. The solution in a free market is to buy products that have have been certified as safe by an entity you choose. We already have competing safety testing an certification companies (e.g Underwriters Laboratories and MET Laboratories) so we know that works.
And the current government regulation system doesn't help the people who died or were injured much either. The lawn darts example from the post I originally applied to - the dead kids are still dead even though we had government run product safety.
We have never, nor will we ever, have a truly free market. That isn't just because of government regulation, but also because corporations don't want it. For a market to truly be 'free' and regulate itself, all costs associated with a product have to be internalized to that product. The price of a gallon of gas should include the cost not only to drill, refine, pump, and distribute that gas, but also the cost of removing the carbon and pollutants involved in burning it, the cost of 'replacing' that gas to create a renewable resource, and any other costs associated with it.
"replacing" costs are irrelevant, and shouldn't be part of cost of something - the others are fine. And free marketers would agree with you.
We have never, nor will we ever, have a truly free market. That isn't just because of government regulation, but also because corporations don't want it. For a market to truly be 'free' and regulate itself, all costs associated with a product have to be internalized to that product. The price of a gallon of gas should include the cost not only to drill, refine, pump, and distribute that gas, but also the cost of removing the carbon and pollutants involved in burning it, the cost of 'replacing' that gas to create a renewable resource, and any other costs associated with it. The same is true of cars. Why are electric cars so much more expensive than gas powered ones? It isn't because the technology is so expensive, its because the price of a gas powered car is artificially lowered, because most of the costs are externalized. The oil companies get subsidies to make gas cheaper, the oil companies and car companies don't have to pay for cleanup of the byproducts of their output, so none of that is reflected in the price, which makes it more popular in the 'free market'.
Obviously anyone for a free market wants oil subsidies removed. Pollution costs are also handled by a free market - pollution that damages other people's property needs to be paid for. Pollution that damages your own propety you pay via the reduced value of said property. Pollution which has less obvious effects (say CO2 and climate change) is handled by consumer choice.
If people want more efficient cars or "green power" they can buy those things. If people don't want that then they can buy the CO2 producing stuff.
How does that work any differently from if people want "green power" they can vote for the politicians who will regulate for "green power", and if they don't they can vote the politicians that will subsidise the oil companies? I guess richer people are getting more of a vote since they buy more stuff and so have a bigger impact with their choices. Then again there's a limit to just how much gas or electricity a person (no matter how rich they are) will buy - whereas there doesn't seem to be such on a limit on how much the rich will spend to influence politicians.
Why do you think many manufacturing plants move to countries like China or India? They will clai
Which would be fine. Of course you are ignoring the overlap with other things: if someone get hurt on my property I am possibly liable for damages - yet OSHA doesn't apply. So clearly there are other restrictions that aren't intervention in business anyway.
If you contract with a company knowingly putting yourself in danger, well, that's *your* fault, not theirs. You should have worked somewhere safer.
That's just a repitition of the previous point.
Monopolies and Oligopolies are free to exist since no government can step in to take them down.
I'll take that over the government created monopolies and oligopolies we get with the current way of doing things. Since monopolies that arise in a free market can at least be destroyed by a new competitor (say when tech changes reduce the barriers to entry) but the government created ones get protection from the government.
Collusion is free to run rampant since there will be no regulation on it.
Repeating yourself again, collusion only works when the number of players is reasonably small and barriers to entry are reasonably large - so it's the same issue as monopolies and oligopolies.
Insider trading and stock manipulation is all good to go, again, no government to stop them!
I also have no problem with that. Obviously that increases the risk in owning shares in companies and hence would increase the risk premium and so lower the price of shares and provide more pressure on companies to provide dividends and so on.
And private stock exchanges would be free to restrict such activity too - as they do already in the current system (for example: http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/11-NYSE-6.pdf). If a company is listed on the NYSE they have to follow the NYSE rules.
In a free market you can get some competition on this - one exchange can have very strict rules that are expensive to comply with. Another can have less rules that are easier to comply with but result in more risk of manipulation. One exchange can spend lots of money on investigation and enforcement of their rules and charge higher fees to be listed or higher transaction fees on trades. Another can do less investigation and enforcement but have lower fees.
People get to decide what risk level they are comfortable with and what terms they'll agree to in order to use said exchange. Companies get to decide what level of compliance they are willing to deal with (stricter exchanges result in lower risk premiums and hence higher stock prices so there's an incentive to go with them).
Privacy? Regulatory Compliance? Who needs that?
What does privacy have to do with government intervention in business? That's an area of general law.
Regulatory compliance again just repeating the previous item.
You got injured from a product, aka lawn darts? Then don't buy them if they're so unsafe!
Exactly. And sue them (just like in the current system) if you think they were negligent/etc in making the product.
If youâ(TM)re a Verizon subscriber I suggest using an alternative payment method and avoiding it at all costs.
I would suggest not costing yourself more than $2 to avoid a $2 charge. Well unless you have a way to inconveniance Verizon and don't mind paying to do so of course.
I didn't claim it could. And I didn't claim the current one isn't good enough.
I just disputed the claim that the current one is "perfectly working" and "accurate to 1 day in 3000 years" given we have to add a day about every 4 years to it too.
And you don't have to shift the Earth's orbit, you could just as well change the Earth's rotation. Not that I claimed we should care about doing either.
There seems to be demand. There seems to be no qualitative differentiation - the $20 bill in my pocket printed in 2010 is perfectly fungible with the $20 bill printed in 2011 in your pocket, or with two $10 bills.
There are futures exchanges and currency exchanges.
So what is it aboue money that isn't the same as a commodity? And hence would make it ludicrous to think that a commodity could used as money?
Starbucks isn't the only place to get a latte, why would you assume all latte's are at the Starbucks quality point?
And pick a mediocre coffee in the US and I'm sure you can find a worse one in Europe. Pick a good coffee in Europe and I'm sure you can find a better one in the US. (and both apply in reverse).
The average in Europe might be better than the average in the US, but they both suck so that doesn't matter much.
I'd still risk $5 on an unknown quality coffee - that very well might be undrinkable - with far less thought than buying a $5 app.
You are leaving out a key part of the Hillory Clinton quote - she was responding to the question what would she do if she was President and Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Leaving out that the response was regarding a nuclear attack is a little deceptive.
So Clinton's one is a threat to wipe Iran from the map essentially - but it's conditional on Iran making a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel. That's what the nuclear umbrella is - the US is committed to that with respect to a nuclear attack on a NATO country (other than the UK or France) , Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Extending that Umbrella to Israel is not the same as declaring you hope Iran will be obliterated.
McCain is a nut pure and simple. But even so bombing is not wiping from the map.
Where did I say you said they avoid word "Israel"?
I read your statement "if Iran doesn't recognize Israel to the point they are incapable of using word Israel as reference to the state or nation" to be saying that I claimed Iran wouldn't use the word Israel.
Where did I say that lack of word nation and state means they couldn't refer to Israel as state?
You said ""the "wipe off the map" remarks clearly applies to "zionist regime", no matter hard you and fox try to twist the passage there is no single word about "nation" or "state"." So you plainly state that the lack of the word "nation" or "state" means they aren't referring to Israel as a state.
This is particularly funny, because it was you who cited from foxnews issued englishpersian-english dictionary that bizarre definition that "zionist regime" equals jewish state/Israel. When challenged you presented even more absurd theory they couldn't use words like nation, state (fyi, I didn't say there must be exactly these two words, read my formulation again) or just plain Israel because they politically don't recognize Israel state.
It's not absurd it's a simple fact. Iran does not acknowledge the state of Israel. When they say "Zionist regime" they are referring to what everyone else calls the "state of Israel". Similiarly with "Occupied Palestine" is what they use for what everyone else calls the land that makes up the country of Israel.
And suddenly it's me who is saying they couldn't just write Israel as a reference to the state?
I didn't claim you said they couldn't use such a term, again you are making things up. I said I didn't say that since you implied that I did when you wrote "if Iran doesn't recognize Israel to the point they are incapable of using word Israel "
Even from the phrase "Zionist Regime of Israel", on that exact page you linked, it's absolutely clear that when they want to talk about the Israel nation or its land, Iran is perfectly happy with word "Israel". But keep entertaining me with theories how zionist regime doesn't mean zionist regime and Israel really isn't Israel.
Obviously that's my point the term "Zionist Regime of Israel" is Iranian speak for "the Nation of Israel". You are the one who claimed they couldn't be referring to Israel as a nation, not me.
So you are saying regime change in US/Israel speak means bombing, invasion, toppling government, etc. as opposed to Iran coded english speak about the end of zionist regime which means...? Yeah, it would be interesting to know what exactly do you imagine Iran's "wipe regime off the map" will be in reality, if not bombing and invasion?
US speak of regime change means exactly that - removing the current government. You may note that Iraq was subjected to that and there is still a nation called Iraq, and that nation has an Iraqi government.
Iranian speak of "wipe from the map" means the complete destruction of the nation. As in there is no country called Israel anymore, instead the entire land area of current Israel becomes part of the Palestinian state. The wipe off the map statement isn't something new - it's a quote from Khomeini and it's pretty clear what he meant...
I didn't say they avoid the word Israel - again you are making that up in order to try and have a point. I said they avoid the words "nation" and "state" in reference to Israel - you know the two words you claimed the lack of meant they couldn't be referring to Israel as a state.
The point was that Iraq still exists on the map and hence invading/bombing a country does not wipe them off the map. Hence talking about a country being invaded or bombed is not the same as talking a country being wiped off the map. Hence an example of Israel talking about Iran having its nuclear facilities bombed is not the same as Israel talking about Iran being wiped off the map.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry. I trimmed the last line. Let me add it back:
How about you don't be a fucking retard and learn how to do a web search?
I'll help even more since you are obviously more retarded than I first thought:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=QR+decoder
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=QR+decoder+firefox
And for even more help - the first result in each case.
Of course I suspect clicking a link is beyond your mental abilities, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.
Really?
Gore and Cheney are both pretty well known. Though Gore not so much for being VP.
Biden not so much. Cheney (and Palin if they'd won) are the only two (well Quayle too if we go back a little further) that I would see as assassination defenses.
I mean this year - I'm skipping a couple of days right now apparently.
I skipped over my wedding aniversary on my flight to Australia last year. Best anniversary so far!
Given wanting to do the flying on the weekend I won't be able to repeat that until 2016.
It is known that there are an infinite number of integers, simply because there is no maximum integer. However, not every one if them is even. Therefore, there must be a finite number of even integers.
We hit a major flaw with the logic on the very first inference. Of course comic science fiction isn't supposed to be a math textbook.
There is. And there is.
Afraid of being scooped by some other publication?
The constitution does no such thing (well for Congress, there is only one President so that can be nothing but winner-takes-all, well I guess you could return to "second place gets to be VP" but that's retarded). Legislation has, but legislation is far easier to change than the consitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/2c.html is what stops a state from using proportional representation in a multiseat district making up the entire state.
Per capita numbers and population are exactly the best choice for working out what the total income is (assuming you don't have the total income number directly)
There was no claim that taxes or income where uniform across the population. Just the simple evidence that your "The American government spends so much money that even if every single income tax payer was paying 100% of their income in tax, there would still be a deficit" claim is completely false.
He resorted to that after the bad email. Not a swearing and so on email, but "put on your big boy hat" and "Maybe Iâ(TM)ll put them on eBay for 150.00 myself".
Everything until that point had been civil... Everything up to that point has been a private email exchange.
All the guy had to do was not be evasive in a reply, give the customer an expected shipping date and say "sorry for the delays but it is outside our control at the moment".
And instead of replying instantly with "put on your big boy hat" take a little while to see if they can extend the $10 off offer to new orders they are currently running to this particular customer (or if you are the one who makes the decision just do so).
His greviances would have been erased then and there. In fact the only thing the customer seems annoyed with at the time is that there's a $10 off offer to new orders, but it isn't going to apply to his even though it hasn't even shipped to him yet.
And yes he entered the deal and has no right to $10 off. But after getting the run around and then seeing that most people would ask if they could get it too.
I misread a section, this bit:
I would also think free marketers would disagree with. The costs of the pollutants (including carbon) from burning it should be paid for by the one doing the burning not by the one who produced the gas.
That's simply not true. The solution in a free market is to buy products that have have been certified as safe by an entity you choose. We already have competing safety testing an certification companies (e.g Underwriters Laboratories and MET Laboratories) so we know that works.
And the current government regulation system doesn't help the people who died or were injured much either. The lawn darts example from the post I originally applied to - the dead kids are still dead even though we had government run product safety.
"replacing" costs are irrelevant, and shouldn't be part of cost of something - the others are fine. And free marketers would agree with you.
Obviously anyone for a free market wants oil subsidies removed. Pollution costs are also handled by a free market - pollution that damages other people's property needs to be paid for. Pollution that damages your own propety you pay via the reduced value of said property. Pollution which has less obvious effects (say CO2 and climate change) is handled by consumer choice.
If people want more efficient cars or "green power" they can buy those things. If people don't want that then they can buy the CO2 producing stuff.
How does that work any differently from if people want "green power" they can vote for the politicians who will regulate for "green power", and if they don't they can vote the politicians that will subsidise the oil companies? I guess richer people are getting more of a vote since they buy more stuff and so have a bigger impact with their choices. Then again there's a limit to just how much gas or electricity a person (no matter how rich they are) will buy - whereas there doesn't seem to be such on a limit on how much the rich will spend to influence politicians.
It wouldn't be that hard to pretend you know acted badly and wouldn't do it again. Instead he pulls out:
And of course assigns the fault to the Penny Arcade guy for being rude to him.
If you aren't going to pretend then at least stop digging.
Which would be fine. Of course you are ignoring the overlap with other things: if someone get hurt on my property I am possibly liable for damages - yet OSHA doesn't apply. So clearly there are other restrictions that aren't intervention in business anyway.
That's just a repitition of the previous point.
I'll take that over the government created monopolies and oligopolies we get with the current way of doing things. Since monopolies that arise in a free market can at least be destroyed by a new competitor (say when tech changes reduce the barriers to entry) but the government created ones get protection from the government.
Repeating yourself again, collusion only works when the number of players is reasonably small and barriers to entry are reasonably large - so it's the same issue as monopolies and oligopolies.
I also have no problem with that. Obviously that increases the risk in owning shares in companies and hence would increase the risk premium and so lower the price of shares and provide more pressure on companies to provide dividends and so on.
And private stock exchanges would be free to restrict such activity too - as they do already in the current system (for example: http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/11-NYSE-6.pdf). If a company is listed on the NYSE they have to follow the NYSE rules.
In a free market you can get some competition on this - one exchange can have very strict rules that are expensive to comply with. Another can have less rules that are easier to comply with but result in more risk of manipulation. One exchange can spend lots of money on investigation and enforcement of their rules and charge higher fees to be listed or higher transaction fees on trades. Another can do less investigation and enforcement but have lower fees.
People get to decide what risk level they are comfortable with and what terms they'll agree to in order to use said exchange. Companies get to decide what level of compliance they are willing to deal with (stricter exchanges result in lower risk premiums and hence higher stock prices so there's an incentive to go with them).
What does privacy have to do with government intervention in business? That's an area of general law.
Regulatory compliance again just repeating the previous item.
Exactly. And sue them (just like in the current system) if you think they were negligent/etc in making the product.
From the artcle:
I would suggest not costing yourself more than $2 to avoid a $2 charge. Well unless you have a way to inconveniance Verizon and don't mind paying to do so of course.
I didn't claim it could. And I didn't claim the current one isn't good enough.
I just disputed the claim that the current one is "perfectly working" and "accurate to 1 day in 3000 years" given we have to add a day about every 4 years to it too.
And you don't have to shift the Earth's orbit, you could just as well change the Earth's rotation. Not that I claimed we should care about doing either.
So money isn't a commodity?
There seems to be demand. There seems to be no qualitative differentiation - the $20 bill in my pocket printed in 2010 is perfectly fungible with the $20 bill printed in 2011 in your pocket, or with two $10 bills.
There are futures exchanges and currency exchanges.
So what is it aboue money that isn't the same as a commodity? And hence would make it ludicrous to think that a commodity could used as money?
Starbucks isn't the only place to get a latte, why would you assume all latte's are at the Starbucks quality point?
And pick a mediocre coffee in the US and I'm sure you can find a worse one in Europe. Pick a good coffee in Europe and I'm sure you can find a better one in the US. (and both apply in reverse).
The average in Europe might be better than the average in the US, but they both suck so that doesn't matter much.
I'd still risk $5 on an unknown quality coffee - that very well might be undrinkable - with far less thought than buying a $5 app.
To show that there's enough space for everyone to fit in a first world urban environment without using up all the world's farmland, etc.
Well I'm guessing since I didn't make the point in the first place.
On some part of the 40 million square kilometers of arable land that isn't part of the city.
Everyone else will wins due to getting a minor chuckle out of it.
You are leaving out a key part of the Hillory Clinton quote - she was responding to the question what would she do if she was President and Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Leaving out that the response was regarding a nuclear attack is a little deceptive.
So Clinton's one is a threat to wipe Iran from the map essentially - but it's conditional on Iran making a preemptive nuclear strike on Israel. That's what the nuclear umbrella is - the US is committed to that with respect to a nuclear attack on a NATO country (other than the UK or France) , Australia, Japan, and South Korea. Extending that Umbrella to Israel is not the same as declaring you hope Iran will be obliterated.
McCain is a nut pure and simple. But even so bombing is not wiping from the map.
We add a leap day about every 4 years in the current one, so it's not perfectly working by that metric to start with.
I read your statement "if Iran doesn't recognize Israel to the point they are incapable of using word Israel as reference to the state or nation" to be saying that I claimed Iran wouldn't use the word Israel.
You said ""the "wipe off the map" remarks clearly applies to "zionist regime", no matter hard you and fox try to twist the passage there is no single word about "nation" or "state"." So you plainly state that the lack of the word "nation" or "state" means they aren't referring to Israel as a state.
It's not absurd it's a simple fact. Iran does not acknowledge the state of Israel. When they say "Zionist regime" they are referring to what everyone else calls the "state of Israel". Similiarly with "Occupied Palestine" is what they use for what everyone else calls the land that makes up the country of Israel.
I didn't claim you said they couldn't use such a term, again you are making things up. I said I didn't say that since you implied that I did when you wrote "if Iran doesn't recognize Israel to the point they are incapable of using word Israel "
Obviously that's my point the term "Zionist Regime of Israel" is Iranian speak for "the Nation of Israel". You are the one who claimed they couldn't be referring to Israel as a nation, not me.
US speak of regime change means exactly that - removing the current government. You may note that Iraq was subjected to that and there is still a nation called Iraq, and that nation has an Iraqi government.
Iranian speak of "wipe from the map" means the complete destruction of the nation. As in there is no country called Israel anymore, instead the entire land area of current Israel becomes part of the Palestinian state. The wipe off the map statement isn't something new - it's a quote from Khomeini and it's pretty clear what he meant...
I didn't say they avoid the word Israel - again you are making that up in order to try and have a point. I said they avoid the words "nation" and "state" in reference to Israel - you know the two words you claimed the lack of meant they couldn't be referring to Israel as a state.
The point was that Iraq still exists on the map and hence invading/bombing a country does not wipe them off the map. Hence talking about a country being invaded or bombed is not the same as talking a country being wiped off the map. Hence an example of Israel talking about Iran having its nuclear facilities bombed is not the same as Israel talking about Iran being wiped off the map.